Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1887-01-29

unless they discharged their old workmen |
and employed such persons as the conspira- |
tors should name.
1t was further intended and threatened, as
the State claims, that, if the COURIER did
not yield at once when the time should come,
that it would be glad to yield, to escape
further injury, it would have to pay the
E'boycott" expenses.
There was no Interference with others by
way of competition in business. The scheme
was simply to coerce the COURIER to become
a union Office and that meant that it's nom
union workmen must be discharged with no
reasonable chance to get work, and that the
COURIER should turn over to the conspirators
the control of the 'slabor" part of the bust
ness.
Boycotting has become SO prevalent that
it would seem judicial notice may be taken
of its origin, barbarous methods and injuri-
GUS results. Boycotting was then defined by
the counsel and its origin noted and it's
definition fixed as applied to Irish land
troubles.
The essential idea of boycotting, whether
in Ireland or the United States, is a confed-
eracy-generally secret-of many persons,
but the number magni6ed by lying, Boosting
and threats, whose intent is to iniure another
by preventing any and all persons from do
ing business with him, through fear of incur
ring their displeasure. The great point is to
isolate the victim-to bring the power and
influence of the many against the one. It is
not hoped to succeed by reason and argu-
ment.
The walking delegate had no other argu-
ment to make to the customers of the CoUR-
TER than that "organized labor" had deter
mined to manage part of the Curriers' bust
ness, against their WILL and to drive nom
union worknen out of their trade; had re-
solved to injure and break up and prevent
he hT1oi nf hn
owners should surrender to its demand; and
had resolved to injure and break up the
business of any of the customers of the
COURIER who, after due notice and warning,
should continue business with the COURIER.
If this be argument, what is intimidation?
The brutality of this method of operation
will not be disputed; but it may seem to the
court incredible that in country educated
for generations in the principles of civil lib
erty such a combination and conspiracy
should have any chance of success.
Let no mistake be made on this point. I'm
less the strong arm of the State interferes, or
unless the boycottee has exceptional facilities
to contend against this brutal method of
warfare, a boycott, no matter how unjust, is,
or was year ago, quite apt to be successful.
It is bottomed on inspiring fear in others,
in sapping and undermining manliness and
courage through fear, the usual way in which
those qualities are brought to naught.
''Omne ignotum terret.''
1t is, or was a year ago, easy to withhold
custom from the boycottee, through fear OF
q greater and unknown source of disaster and
ruin, threatened with the most audacious
confidence.
The courts certificate brings the legality
of boycottine in its general purpose and
methods directly in issue in this court The
State does not claim that the criminality of
a boycott consists only in the demand of the
boycotters that the boycottee shall pay the
costs of legal method of compelling him to
surrender part of his business to their con-
troll. If it is legal to boycott the argument
held cogently as a necessary sequence that it
must be legal to accept the surrender of
money from the boycottee as payment of the
expenses Of the boycott. We do not gee how
the money of the boycotted party is any
more his own than his right to keep in his
employ such workmen as wish to remain in
it. Then there was indisputably a COM
bination to force the Darlington Publishing
company to drive out its printers and have
such as should be forced upon them by the
boycotters. This question of the legality of
boycotting involved is of the utmost public
consequence. The craze of boycotting is, it
is to be hoped, rapidly passing away, there
arising, as Powderly states, suspicion that
it is criminal. The argument treated of the
elements of criminal conspiracy and many
authorities on the subject were cited. Sew
entity, the verdict of the jury may well
stand aside from the evidence as to con-
spiracy to extort the expenses of the boycott.
The argument then sums up the proof OF the
conspiracy and that the News had been boy
cotted and that its punishment was pointed
out by the conspirators as warning to the
COURIER to submit or take the same penalty
On the cross-eAamination of Mr.. Fowler it
appeared that Glidden and Mulcahy, per-
sonally did not care to press the money
demand-even they were ashamed of it-but,
hole IN xuit ha
rest of the committee in demanding it; and
it appeared that afterwards Glidden and
Mcnamara lex. 81 signed the agreement to
arbitrate, in which, under their own hands,
they continued to claim this money demand,
and Glidden presented the demand for $50
per week for boycott expenses (Ex. L.
The testimony of Mrs. Bertha Palm was
cited in further proof on this subject. Ger
tainly, the State further said, not thing
was done by the conspirators to exclude the
idea that money demand to pay boycotting
expenses would be made; further, the law on
demurrer and on criminal conspiracy was al
luded to.
It is said, however, that the common law
doctrine of criminal conspiracy should be
disfavored because the criminal law ought
to be writ out SO plain as that the people
may know when they violate it.
This seems a little absurd in this case.
With one conspirator refusing to testify be-
Glidden distributing boycott circulars at
midnight, dropping them between himself
and friend so that it might not be known
who dropped them; with s'boycott" carried
on by secret oath-bound organizations; with
boycott circulars, spread broadcast, signed
by no names unless, forsooth, "Com. L. U"
be name; it seems useless to say that the
were conscious of rectitude, or of
carrying out an object by "fair and honor
able means"
But if the time ever comes when the cit1-
zens of this State generally are SO lost to all
correct notions of civil hberty-have SO for
gotten that the free action of one man ends
where the just rights of another begin-as to
suppose it to be perfectly lawful, solely be-
cause there is no contrary statute, to COM
bine by concerted action to injure and break
up another's business simply because he will
not discharge trusted workmen or simply
because he will not employ the con-
spirators; when and if the average
intelligence of the country is content to see
Boycott the COURIER" for no other reason
than shown in this case, printed across the
folds of the old flag, as the record page 1853
shows these boycotters in fact did print it,
,hen the old flag had better be taken to the
auction block and sold. There would be
nothing left worth having which once it
represented, and it would be full time to
lose out the cold antiquated stock" and use
The red flag as the fit emblem of the new
gospel.
THE COUNT RECORD.
superior Court-O1viI side-Judge stod-